Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#31

Post by lm28469 »

pfdietz wrote: post #29
lm28469 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. If you do the math the only sensible solution is hardcore degrowth starting yesterday.

I disagree completely, although degrowth may end up happening eventually due to low birth rates. If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed. The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid ev…

> Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.

And growth accelerates it...

Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner.

> would not avoid eventual massive global warming

Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways

Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers

People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#32

Post by nozzlegear »

lm28469 wrote: post #27
chiffre01 wrote: post #4

Before anyone points out that trees already handle this, let me clarify: We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. This includes: Reducing reliance on carbon-based energy to lower emissions. Implementing carbon capture and long-term storage solutions to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere.

> We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. lol, all available options as long as we don't actually look at the root cause and just throw more money and tech at it in the hope it automagically stops hint: infinite growth in a finite system doesn't work PS: and if you care about results, we've been exploring every solution for quite some time now, you know after all o…

Degrowth doesn't work either, it's not a solution and nobody will ever go for it. From the abstract of Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?:

> (2) the large majority (almost 90%) of studies are opinions rather than analysis;

> (3) few studies use quantitative or qualitative data, and even fewer ones use formal modelling;

> (4) the first and second type tend to include small samples or focus on non-representative cases;

> (5) most studies offer ad hoc and subjective policy advice, lacking policy evaluation and integration with insights from the literature on environmental/climate policies;

> (6) of the few studies on public support, a majority concludes that degrowth strategies and policies are socially-politically infeasible;

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#33

Post by bryanlarsen »

lm28469 wrote: post #27
chiffre01 wrote: post #4

Before anyone points out that trees already handle this, let me clarify: We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. This includes: Reducing reliance on carbon-based energy to lower emissions. Implementing carbon capture and long-term storage solutions to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere.

> We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. lol, all available options as long as we don't actually look at the root cause and just throw more money and tech at it in the hope it automagically stops hint: infinite growth in a finite system doesn't work PS: and if you care about results, we've been exploring every solution for quite some time now, you know after all o…

At this point we need net-zero. Degrowth cannot get us to 0, nor can it get us anywhere close to zero.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#34

Post by lm28469 »

weego wrote: post #30
lm28469 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. lol, all available options as long as we don't actually look at the root cause and just throw more money and tech at it in the hope it automagically stops hint: infinite growth in a finite system doesn't work PS: and if you care about results, we've been exploring every solution for quite some time now, you know after all o…

We can throw about causation arguments till the rivers dry up. Will it get us anywhere? Doing something will always win against doing nothing because we're fighting over who has the most virtuous opinion.

> Doing something will always win against doing nothing

Yeah, like we used to pray our gods for more rain, it certainly doesn't hurt, proving it is useful is much more difficult though.

We focus on co2 because it's the only thing we can pretend to be able to tackle a little bit while ignoring the rest like ocean acidification, massive global collapse of wildlife, including insects, rainwater being unsafe to drink pretty much everywhere in the world, micro plastics polluting the entire planet and virtually every single living organism, PFAs, increase in chances of world wide simultaneous crop failure, &c.

99% of what we're doing is green washing or wishful thinking (or sinking, when it comes to co2), the truth is that we won't be able to sustain the western lifestyle much longer, especially not when China, India, and Africa are coming for their slice of the cake

If you think 3000kg EVs transporting 80kg of meat and niche carbon sinking tech will save us I have a bridge to sell you.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#35

Post by pfdietz »

lm28469 wrote: post #31
pfdietz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree completely, although degrowth may end up happening eventually due to low birth rates. If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed. The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid ev…

> Degrowth would simply delay that outcome. And growth accelerates it... Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner. > would not avoid eventual massive global warming Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways Meanwhile 70% of the wil…

I find the microplastics bit has all the odor of an unhinged panic. There seems to be quite a lot of dubious science being done. For example, a few years ago there was a study that said we eat up to 5g of microplastics a week. This figure was widely quoted in the press, with images of a credit card (about 5g) held in chopsticks as an illustration. But critical examination of the paper and the methodology concluded it overestimated the rate of ingestion by as much as a factor of a million.

Underlying all this is the moral approach being taken. It is not enough that environmental problems (perceived or otherwise) be solved; humanity must be punished. Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#36

Post by lm28469 »

nozzlegear wrote: post #32
lm28469 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. lol, all available options as long as we don't actually look at the root cause and just throw more money and tech at it in the hope it automagically stops hint: infinite growth in a finite system doesn't work PS: and if you care about results, we've been exploring every solution for quite some time now, you know after all o…

Degrowth doesn't work either, it's not a solution and nobody will ever go for it. From the abstract of Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis? : > (2) the large majority (almost 90%) of studies are opinions rather than analysis; > (3) few studies use quantitative or qualitative data, and even fewer ones use formal modelling; > (4) the first and second type tend to inclu…

> Degrowth doesn't work either

It's literally the only mathematically viable option. Either you choose it and plan for it or you hit the wall and deal with the consequences. Just take a gpd per capita world map, superimpose it over a pollution per capita world map, and extrapole the impact of china+india+africa living like the average american or even the average european, it just doesn't work out, but it's coming very soon

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#37

Post by lm28469 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #33
lm28469 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. lol, all available options as long as we don't actually look at the root cause and just throw more money and tech at it in the hope it automagically stops hint: infinite growth in a finite system doesn't work PS: and if you care about results, we've been exploring every solution for quite some time now, you know after all o…

At this point we need net-zero. Degrowth cannot get us to 0, nor can it get us anywhere close to zero.

See the problem is that we want to continue doing everything in the exact same way without giving up on any single little eccentricity we have no matter how ridiculous and how stupidly unsustainable they are, not a single damn thing

Degrowth is also stopping to eat tomatoes in the middle of January instead of importing them from the other side of the world, or not eating fucking salmon when you live in South Africa, or not using a 3000kg car to move you 80kg ass around the street to go shopping. Or things like not living in the desert and relying on AC and artificial rain to keep you alive because you would physically die if you were to experience the outside world for more than an hour

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#38

Post by lm28469 »

pfdietz wrote: post #35
lm28469 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Degrowth would simply delay that outcome. And growth accelerates it... Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner. > would not avoid eventual massive global warming Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways Meanwhile 70% of the wil…

I find the microplastics bit has all the odor of an unhinged panic. There seems to be quite a lot of dubious science being done. For example, a few years ago there was a study that said we eat up to 5g of microplastics a week. This figure was widely quoted in the press, with images of a credit card (about 5g) held in chopsticks as an illustration. But critical examination of the paper and the methodology concluded it…

We find microplastics in foetus brains, if your immediate thought is "meh ok it's probably fine" you're already beyond saving, all of that for what ? Cheap gadgets, some convenience and comfort

> humanity must be punished

We're punishing ourselves right now... look at our food, 75% obese/overweight in the west, 15% of US population on antidepressant, life expectancy going down, testosterone levels dropping 1% per year from the 80s if not before, massive wildlife collapse, nutrients in veggies/fruits massively dropped since the 50s, increasing floods/hurricanes/&c.

> Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone

If you're about to get lung cancer because your smoke 1 pack a day you can always tell your doctor you started drinking green tea to get extra antioxidants, as long as you smoke 1 pack a day you're doomed.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#39

Post by lm28469 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #11
chiffre01 wrote: post #4

Before anyone points out that trees already handle this, let me clarify: We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. This includes: Reducing reliance on carbon-based energy to lower emissions. Implementing carbon capture and long-term storage solutions to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere.

The papers lead author stated that 200g of the material can absorb as much CO2 in a year as a tree.

According to studies about batteries we should have electric planes since 2010 and we should be able to recharge any battery instantly regardless of their size. Ah and these batteries would be very cheap too

And that's if:

- the study can be replicated

- the study wasn't altered to boost publishing metrics

Remember super conductivity at room temperature from a few months back ?

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#40

Post by lm28469 »

danbruc wrote: post #22
Workaccount2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The papers lead author stated that 200g of the material can absorb as much CO2 in a year as a tree.

Optimistically [1] 200 g can capture 250 kg carbon dioxide per year, at the expense of heating the material almost 28,000 times from ambient to 60°C. And that still leaves you with 139 m³ of carbon dioxide gas, what do you do with that? [1] 2.05 mmol/g at half capacity equals 45 mg/g per cycle, and ignoring heating and cooling times one can fit 27,976.6 cycles into a year. Overall that is 1.262 kg/g/y.

Cool, we only produced 37 000 000 000 tonnes of co2 in the last 100 years
Post reply on HN